Featured Post

Elections Fervour, Fear Cambodia v UK

Voters who do not turn
out at elections often reason “It won’t make any difference, which party to
vote for or not at all*”. This is not the case in Cambodia where the ruling party’s
strategy makes it clear where benefits will go to, or be forfeited by the way a
vote is cast. This picture shows the quality of a publicly-funded road

A key test of a healthy
democracy? Read on.

Foreword to this blog December 2017Firstly you will no longer see Opposition CNRP signs anywhere. They were removed once the Cambodia Supreme Court announced the dissolution of the party. It is very clear that holding on to power matters more than anything else, yet some kind of election again as in 1998, is still wanted by the ruling party (for international legitimacy) and by many in the international community too- intricately entwined with it (to maintain business-as-usual). That is bound to mean even more manipulation of electoral processes, and even more skewed interpretation of standards to determine if elections are free, fair and credible. The criteria set out in this blog is the basis of how such judgments should be made.Original blog:Part Two (14 June
2017]

Predicting elections is for the foolhardy as Opinion
Pollsters are learning.I can’t claim to
be any better.Like most people, I did
not foresee the UK election shock result with the governing Conservative Party
losing its majority.Nor did most of us
foresee the 2013 Cambodian election where the Opposition CNRP Party almost
wrestled power.

So maybe I should hold back on commenting? But then, there is much to be said [that sadly
many Cambodians daren’t say] and important lessons learned in the quest for
free and fair elections.

Democracies everywhere like Cambodia have much to learn from
the UK. The most important lesson is to accept the people’s verdict, and to
hand over or share power if need be.

The results

Basically in both Cambodia and the UK, the respective ruling
parties “won” but with narrow leads in both cases.In neither case were narrow wins expected:
Cambodia because of aforethought and design; the UK by simple virtue of conventional
wisdom now discredited.

In Cambodia the result (until official figures on 25 June)
are 85.7% turnout, with 51% to the ruling CPP party and 46% to the main
Opposition CNRP.The UK turnout was
68.7% with the ruling Conservatives taking 42.4% and main Opposition Labour
Party 40%.

So as postulated in Part 1 (below) both ruling parties came
out on top - no surprise in Cambodia but a shock in the UK where the
Conservatives were expected to romp home with a large majority. Actually they lost their working
majority in the UK Parliament and need support of another party to govern.

Fervour: for fervour the Cambodia electorate easily beat the UK with 85.7% turnout for local
elections, whereas the UK’s reported “high” national turnout mustered a mere 68.7%. (The actual turnout for UK local
elections was 36% last month, May.)

Despite Cambodia’s greater fervour, is there any doubt which
of the two, UK or Cambodia, is the healthier democracy?

My analysis suggests that it is the UK with it retaining my
Gold Medal award, but with perhaps not quite a full gleaming shine.

Cambodia is still far
from healthy, not a lot better – worse in some respects – than my first
election in 1998. I have witnessed every one since. The 2017 election falls short of a Bronze
model, although it could yet attain that by the time everything settles down.
For now though it is still in the plastic age or stage!

My assessment and award will change significantly
if real power in all 482 ( or so) communes won by the CNRP is amicably handed
over by CPP and/or if in most of the 1,646 newly-elected Commune
Councils we see a return to the original idea (and the Law) for them of sharing power locally,
working collectively as a Council, and not as single all-powerful chiefdoms. I
suspect that both CPP and CNRP parties will stick to the “winner-takes-all” mentality.

If the earlier precedents apply in Cambodia of when CPP shared
power with another party FUNCINPEC (from 1993 to 2003) , in reality it will
be CPP officials who will retain real power even if they are nominally junior
in the leaderships to officials of other parties.

Fear: For fear; lack of fear or disregard of fear, i.e.,
not being intimidated by pre-election warnings of dire consequences of not voting
for “stability” and the ruling party, both the Cambodian and UK electorates
deserve great credit.

Voters in the UK are safe in the knowledge that they will
not be punished for disloyalty. Indeed, it is the “swing voters”, ones who
change allegiances, that win or lose every election in the UK.

In Cambodia punishment is likely, as the example pictured at the top of this blog illustrates, and to
be expected if the ruling party keeps to its pre-election threats.This election’s brave disloyal 46% will
probably find not only do they miss out on development, but in everyday
essential tasks at their Commune Hall like obtaining identity cards and updated
family books. They will find them harder to obtain and to cost more one way or
another.

In two important aspects, Cambodia is doing much better in
these elections than before but will they last for the national elections next year and beyond?

So far thankfully there
has been no bloodshed, unlike in previous elections, but intimidation is
actually greater.The 1998-2003
National Election Committee decided not to have polling station counts in
order to make it harder for the ruling party to identify disloyal
communities. The current NEC should revert to that practice.

So far Social Media has been free, but
that is threatened by a planned “Cyber Law” that could be enacted before
the 2018 national elections.Similarly the already passed laws restricting NGOs and Trade Unions
have not been applied vigorously – that
was threatened – but this could change over the next year as the
ruling party tightens up further on all forms of opposition.

The question CPP is yet to face up to is “Can CPP win
an election truly fairly?” If
46% voted against it this time despite the intimidating environment, it doesn’t
take much to show where true majority loyalties rest.

The “Free, Fair and Credible” accolade and one of my democracy
medals will not be earned by Cambodia until the NEC is reformed in both
structure and in process. Its leadership should be genuinely independent, not
the current bi-partisan compromise, and its secretariat – now part of the main civil
service and therefore CPP-orientated – must be taken back to be directly-employed
by the NEC itself so that no-one is beholden to government and any political
party.These moves would do much to
correct fundamental weaknesses in process, i.e. in decision-making. To correct
those, NEC ought to apply strictly the principles of natural
justice that I once taught in good governance training to top officials.

The ultimate test of fair elections is not only the peaceful
handover of power to the winners but equally that the losers accept the result
in good faith[1].

As it happens the Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL), a genuine objective monitor of elections, has since reached similar conclusions. Sadly, the Cambodian ruling party is seeking to undermine such professionalism by actively supporting and participating in a new rival election monitor, ICAPP that simply put lacks credibility.

So Cambodia and the ruling CPP party, you know what you must
do to win a medal in the 2018 national elections. Roll on 2018!

* "It won’t make any difference, which party to
vote for or not at all”

(Caption from photograph above)

Well one more vote would have made an enormous difference in Blyth, Northumberland - please see Footnote 1 below for details and an example of democracy at its best and its most intriguing.

Additional points

Please note that in this blog I have chosen not to comment
about the basic systems of democracy and conducting elections in either country
although there are strong arguments for reform in both the UK and Cambodia. Both employ the same system of “first past the
post” in each constituency rather than the proportional one based on the share
of the overall vote accorded to each party. In the UK that is because of the tradition of
citizens identifying with their local MPs personally once they are in office,
so that they do act as their representatives with regular meetings in
constituencies and taking up issues for citizens. Losing candidates and parties
are free to continue to campaign, to promote themselves as the alternatives
next time round. UK MPs can and do break ranks from their party as Labour
Leader Jeremy Corbyn
best exemplifies. In Cambodia, so far,
these are limited at best, inconceivable on most matters, or just denied
outright. The ruling party in Cambodia
refused to allow the CNRP to appoint a shadow
cabinet.

Similarly in practice in Cambodia, the executive acts “Presidentially”
rather than collectively through a Cabinet or Council of Ministers. One Prime
Minister has just learned that this is not a good idea. The other should take
note.

Cambodia:
Boundaries decided by party-political led Interior Ministry. National
Election Committee bi-party headed, ruling party orientated. NEC Appeals
& Constitutional Council ruling party orientated. NEC often performs well
but faith in processes & final verdicts is not universal. Police and
Defence Chiefs overtly affirm loyalty to ruling party.

Non-election
period: i.e. after previous election results accepted, before build-up to
next one starts.

“Normal
Politics”

All
parties, media, civil society free to conduct activities and to comment. All Cambodians are able to register to vote freely regardless of where they live or work.

United
Kingdom

4

Parties,
media and civil society operate freely. Media biased to ruling party but not
exclusively. Ruling party enjoys some benefit from incumbency and from
greater largely uncontrolled funds/donations. All eligible voters able to register and to vote even if absent from home.

Cambodia

1

Pressures
applied to restrict all forms of opposition while actively promoting ruling
party interests.[2]
Local officials unable to distinguish between party and public functions.
Prime Minister uses all forums (giving educational certificates; road/bridge
opening) to assail opponents without right to reply. Threats hang of
defamation/incitement charges. Opposition political leaders hounded[3].
Funding behind ruling party and development projects generally not clear;
sources & original sources of wealth attributable to CPP affiliated magnates.Partisan authorities either encourage or deter potential voters to register, depending on party loyalties, with rules that deter absentees from home.

Run
up to elections

Imprecise
but once signs become clear.

The
pre-election environment must not be contaminated in order to remain
conducive to full and equal participation.

United
Kingdom

4

Good
as permanent institutions are in-place and elections are routine having taken
place for centuries. Ruling party manipulated scene by calling snap election
despite professing otherwise.

Cambodia

1

My
view is that the Cambodian ruling party consciously devoted the whole of the
period since 2013 elections to
advance its case with periodic and increased efforts including threat of
war. The Opposition CNRP party despite being close to parity in share of vote
and parliamentary representation has been marginalised. State institutions
ineffective to counter such biases. Civil Society is targeted when it tries. Current
electoral register probably did not reflect all or only eligible voters[4],
ultimately affecting final outcome.

Election
Campaign

All
parties must enjoy an equal playing surface in order to be able to convey
their policies and credentials of candidates for electors to have free
choice.

United
Kingdom

5

These
conditions were all met in the UK, where they are taken for granted. At
times, some media known as “tabloid” press give hyperbolic pronouncements but
UK electorate is mature enough to make up its own minds.Equal opportunity to attend/speak at
national mass broadcast debates and engage with other parties. Opinion
pollsters operate freely.

Cambodia

2

Once
campaign underway, to some extent pressures on opposition parties relaxed.
However ruling party authorities still placed arbitrary restrictions on
Opposition such as on key note rallies & marches. Public debate was
limited, ruling party dominated mass media generally, although equal time was
given to election broadcasts. Opinion canvassing/commenting on campaigns was self-censored;
strictly controlled, or only permitted within certain tolerated limits (i.e.,
English Press). Heavy Police and
Military presences were deployed.

Conduct
of the Polls

Polls
and polling go smoothly. Voters at ease.

United
Kingdom

5

Given
the UK’s well-practised election machinery, almost without exception the vote
proceeded smoothly with all 30 million votes cast and counted within 24
hours.

Cambodia

3

Polling
day went smoothly with voters seemingly unfazed by heavy Police and Military
presences. 6.74 million cast their
votes. Fewer complaints lodged than in
previous years. Two factors spoiled the day.

Absentee
voters were not given by right time off from work to return home to vote. Reports
of military trucks conveying soldiers in to vote in some marginal communes. No provision for Cambodians abroad to vote.

Counts
were completed & accepted between just over one hour after polls closed
and just over 24 hours.

Cambodia

2

The
count generally proceeded smoothly – it cannot match UK speeds as each ballot
is held up to be inspected, and communication to collate.co-ordinate counts
varies. 40 Recounts
have been demanded. How to interpret spoiled/rejected ballots still subject
to dispute.

Incomplete
section – to be finalised. A stated above 40 recounts lodged at NEC but
most rejected during NEC’s opaque internal processes. Those accepted have
been contested with one disorderly recount.

Transfer
of power

Candidates
winning the vote take up office with full rights and responsibilities.
Winning party (parties) take office, losers accept Opposition or junior role
in government.

United

Kingdom

5

Although
the Conservative Party did not win a majority, as it won most seats,
constitutionally it can form government as a minority or with agreement of
another party – that may be a formal coalition or support on major votes that
can bring down a government ( confidence & budget approval).This is accepted by all parties.

Cambodia

1

Incomplete
section – to be finalised. Please see my codicil above in text:If...482 ( or so) communes won by the
CNRP are amicably handed over by CPP and if in most of the 1,646 newly-elected
Commune Councils we see a return to the original idea for them of sharing
power “.

This was my blog written before both Cambodian and UK elections - please read to compare "Before and After" It would be good to have a French election comparison.

[1] The best example of winners and
losers accepting results and the “referee’s” decision was in my home county of
Northumberland in Blyth
where the counts equal in local elections, the seat was won on a toss of a
coin.Now not only did that mean one
party lost a seat but it also lost its potential majority rule of the
authority. Smallest
majority in the national election was just 2, accepted without
rancour as in Cambodia.

[2] Cambodia’s political scene is often
punctuated by assault, litigation and assassinations of political and civil
society opponents. In the last election build-up, prominent commentator and
analyst Kem
Ley was killed.

[3] See for example my
blog and links regarding the repeated “exclusion” of Opposition Leader Sam
Rainsy from active local politics,a tactic employed by the ruling party also
with former Opponent Prince Ranariddh.

[4] Officials at commune level conducting
registration have considerable discretion to enter and deny registration to
electors. Also the ruling party refuses to countenance absentee voting, unlike
other countries even within ASEAN, so workers working away from home (garment
workers, university students, etc) and all Cambodians abroad are
disenfranchised. Needless to say these groups tend to be opposition supporters.